Spineless Trump seeks good relationship with Putin's Russia after Russia votes at UN against Israel

[NotfooledbyW]

I assume that everything you write here is a rationalization of your intent to put everything on your partisan and ideological enemies.

I take that back. It is not an assumption. It is a reasonable conclusion from your ravings.

Bush made the offer. Saddam could stay in power if he was disarmed, it is in no way a rationalization to conclude that there were absolutely no other issues taking place in March 2003 that Bush could use to justify invading and occupying Iraq.

It was WMD and nothing else,

There is no way logic and reason leads to any other conclusion.

 

[Correll]

I assume that everything you write here is a rationalization of your intent to put everything on your partisan and ideological enemies.

I take that back. It is not an assumption. It is a reasonable conclusion from your ravings.

Bush made the offer. Saddam could stay in power if he was disarmed, it is in no way a rationalization to conclude that there were absolutely no other issues taking place in March 2003 that Bush could use to justify invading and occupying Iraq.

It was WMD and nothing else,

There is no way logic and reason leads to any other conclusion.

Yes, it is a rationalization. I gave you a list of alternative reasons for the mention of "ONE" issue.

YOu have not addressed that. That list stands. including the "ect"

Your conclusion that the only thing it could mean was that there were no other issues, is the self serving rationalization, that gives you the basis for your dismissal of all other arguments, ridiculing everyone who disagrees and putting all the onus on your enemies.



FOR ONE EXAMPLE. YOu state that Bush could NOT have let another threat go, if the WMD condition were met, thus there were not other conditions.


That is you betting your credibility on your ASSUMPTION, that Bush was competent.

For one example.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll, post: 16345828

It doesn't matter which ones I think rose to a level to justify war. They were all part of the nation wide debate.

Then why did Bush offer no regime change for a disarmed Iraq, not only in March 2003 but often as I quoted from November 2002.

""If the collective will of the world is strong, we can achieve disarmament peacefully,'' Mr. Bush said at a news conference with President Vaclav Havel of the Czech Republic.""

It was all up to Saddam Hussein to be disarmed peacefully Bush said:

"President Bush said in Prague today that the United States was willing to lead a ``coalition of the willing'' against Iraq if President Saddam Hussein chose not to disarm, but he repeated previous assertions that war was his last resort."

Bush promised war could be avoided if Saddam agreed to be disarmed peacefully. Saddam did agree. So without war after Iraq was verified disarmed there would be no other reason for Saddam to step down.

Bush was ok with that condition during the full length of the historical debate.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll, post: 16345882

Yes, it is a rationalization. I gave you a list of alternative reasons for the mention of "ONE" issue.

None of your alternatives mentions a comparable threat justifying war besides WMD. Bush mention one eliminated threat

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll, post: 16345882

FOR ONE EXAMPLE. YOu state that Bush could NOT have let another threat go, if the WMD condition were met, thus there were not other conditions.


That is you betting your credibility on your ASSUMPTION, that Bush was competent.

Bush could not be incompetent since there was no other threat or threats he could cite to justify an invasion of Iraq. None exist beyond WMD as a justifiable threat where war would be required as a last resort.

Hiding WMD from inspectors was Bush's only call. And he called it.

 

[Correll]

Correll, post: 16345828

It doesn't matter which ones I think rose to a level to justify war. They were all part of the nation wide debate.

Then why did Bush offer no regime change for a disarmed Iraq, not only in March 2003 but often as I quoted from November 2002.
....

I have offered a small list of possible reasons, off the top of my head, that you have not addressed. Those reasons stand as the final word on this line of argument until you address them.

You are just involved in the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion at this point. YOu post is invalid.

 

[Correll]

Correll, post: 16345882

Yes, it is a rationalization. I gave you a list of alternative reasons for the mention of "ONE" issue.

None of your alternatives mentions a comparable threat justifying war besides WMD. Bush mention one eliminated threat

They explained different reasons that Bush might have made that offer, that was NOT the single one you assume was true, because it rationalized your smearing and vilification of your enemies.

THus, destroying your argument by their very potential, as you argument is based on the your reason being the sole POSSIBLE reason.

 

[Correll]

Correll, post: 16345882

FOR ONE EXAMPLE. YOu state that Bush could NOT have let another threat go, if the WMD condition were met, thus there were not other conditions.


That is you betting your credibility on your ASSUMPTION, that Bush was competent.

Bush could not be incompetent since there was no other threat or threats he could cite to justify an invasion of Iraq. None exist beyond WMD as a justifiable threat where war would be required as a last resort.

Hiding WMD from inspectors was Bush's only call. And he called it.

You are projecting YOUR judgement of those other reasons, onto Bush and judging him on the ASSUMPTION that he agreed with you on those reasons, AND that he was competent.

There are TWO flaws with your argument, in this ONE scenario, that completely invalidate your argument.


Would you like to move on to review some of the OTHER scenarios I mentioned to review ADDITIONAL ways that your argument is wrong? If so, we need to keep a running count of the ways your argument is a failure.



And to repeat the point.

Your argument is partially based on your assumption that Bush COULD NOT HAVE BEEN INCOMPETENT.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll, post: 16345392

To have destroyed his wmd's without documenting it for verification purposes AND then acting evasive as though he still had them

That was more than a decade before Bush ordered the bombing and ground invasion of Iraq.

He did not act evasive about having them after 9/12/01.

Just facts for you to ignore.

And it is about WMD. You still have not provide a list of any other threats that could have justified war besides WMD.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll, post: 16347522

They explained different reasons that Bush might have made that offer, that was NOT the single one you assume was true, because it rationalized your smearing and vilification of your enemies.

I'm stating the facts. Something that does not interest you.

Bush made the offer to leave Saddam in power contingent upon verification of absence of WMD. He made it based on one point. WMD. Just a fact. Why is presenting a fact smearing and vilification of Bush. After January 1, 2003 hearing Sec Powell stating on national TV that war was not inevitable because Saddam Hussein was cooperating with UN inspectors, I fully welcomed Bush seeking a peaceful diplomatic solution.

I point out that Bush did something I agree with and you find that to be a smear.

I agreed with Bush in November 2002 when he said he wanted war only as a last resort and hoped to resolve the WMD threat peacefully through the UN.

I agreed with Bush that the threat of military force was needed to force Saddam Hussein to allow inspectors in so war could be avoided.

What the hell are you thinking?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll, post: 16347551

Your argument is partially based on your assumption that Bush COULD NOT HAVE BEEN INCOMPETENT.

I must assume that Bush was competent as in having a sound mind. If he was nuts in March 2003, someone surely would have noticed.

That has nothing to do with his statements from September through March 2003 that he wanted war only as a last resort. It is not inconsistent with his offer to leave Saddam in power on or about March 7, 2003.

There was no other threat that Bush could cite that would justify invading Iraq other than declaring that Iraq was hiding WMD from UN inspectors. You think there were other threats. But you still cannot name a single one.

Why can't you write one down here?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Because it was thus still a Just War. Those deaths were thus, not for nothing. The interests of the nation were still being served, potentially at least.

Only a cold hearted murderous warmonger could imagine that a war started to find hidden WMDS that were not there was a just war.

What interests of our nation were served by invading Iraq costing thousands of lives and trillions of wasted dollars? What interest was it in our nation to topple a government and totally fuck up the occupation which left s vacuum to bring al Qaeda into Iraq, kill our troops an lead to the formation of a terrorist group ten times worse than al Qaeda, if you can imagine that.

You are not competent to be a thinking rational human being.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll, post: 16345092,

YOu are jumping to the unsupported conclusion that the condition mentioned in the offer is the only reason.

The Bush did not mention other reasons in the offer, proves that he did not mention other reasons.

It's not my conclusion it is an absolute fact that There is only one threat of Iraq's noncompliance with council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction as mentioned in the November 7 Draft Resolution:

You can argue against historical documented fact but you are an assinine fool to do so.

{Acting under Chapter VII of the charter of the United Nations,

1. Reaffirms the need for full implementation of Resolution 1441 (2002);

2. Calls on Iraq immediately to take the decisions necessary in the interests of its people and the region;

3. Decides that Iraq will have failed to take the final opportunity afforded by Resolution 1441 (2002) unless, on or before 17 March 2003, the council concludes that Iraq has demonstrated full, unconditional, immediate, and active cooperation in accordance with its disarmament obligations under Resolution 1441 (2002) and previous relevant resolutions, and is yielding possession to UNMOVIC and the IAEA of all weapons, weapon delivery and support systems and structures, prohibited by Resolution 687 (1991) and all subsequent resolutions, and all information regarding prior destruction of such items;}

Boston.com / Latest News / World


Bush did not mention any other threat that the UNSC could decide "that Iraq will have failed to take the final opportunity afforded by Resolution 1441" because no other threat besides WMD existed at that moment in time.

The threat of of WMD and WMD is mentioned in the full draft thusly;

{Mindful of its primary responsibility under the charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security, Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international and national peace and security, }

So, Republican Warmonger with a Capitol "W" tell us what other words you could insert in this draft that would make any of it recognizable as sense and reality based.

There is nothing else. If there were you could define it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll, post: 16343271

The Intelligence was wrong.

What intelligence was wrong. On March 7 2003 Bush offered Hussein to stay and no war. He could not have had undoubtable intelligence that Hussein was hiding WMD from inspectors. He would have had to have known where those WMD were being hidden and what they were.

I have never heard that fresh intelligence about hidden WMD was being cited by Bush on March 17 to justify war


trump is right Bush lied us into war.

 

[Correll]

Correll, post: 16345392

To have destroyed his wmd's without documenting it for verification purposes AND then acting evasive as though he still had them

That was more than a decade before Bush ordered the bombing and ground invasion of Iraq.

And since he did not document or verify the destruction of those WMDs, at the time of their destruction, we still did not have verification of their destruction later in time.

Do I have to explain the linear nature of time to you? I've run into this before were extreme partisan rationalization lead lefties to lose their understanding of time.

He did not act evasive about having them after 9/12/01.

A smarter leader of a nation, facing threat of war with a Superpower, would never had STARTED fucking around in the first place.

Just facts for you to ignore.

And it is about WMD. You still have not provide a list of any other threats that could have justified war besides WMD.

Wrong tense. This is history we are talking about. That slip was very telling.

Stop living in the past. Wars happen. Saddam was BEGGING for it. And eventually he got it.





Have you considered that your partisan zeal to put this all on Bush, is preventing you, and this nation from learning any lessons on how to avoid repeating such errors?

 

[Correll]

Correll, post: 16345092,

YOu are jumping to the unsupported conclusion that the condition mentioned in the offer is the only reason.

The Bush did not mention other reasons in the offer, proves that he did not mention other reasons.

It's not my conclusion it is an absolute fact that There is only one threat of Iraq's noncompliance with council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction as mentioned in the November 7 Draft Resolution:
...t.

You are not listening.

Your conclusion is that other reasons not being mentioned, means they don't exist.


That is what is unsupported.

You make that leap, and then build a mountain on it. It is a sad rationalization to support your partisan attacks.


This is a way of avoiding discussing real issues, honestly and seriously.

 

[Correll]

Correll, post: 16343271

The Intelligence was wrong.

What intelligence was wrong. On March 7 2003 Bush offered Hussein to stay and no war. He could not have had undoubtable intelligence that Hussein was hiding WMD from inspectors. He would have had to have known where those WMD were being hidden and what they were.

I have never heard that fresh intelligence about hidden WMD was being cited by Bush on March 17 to justify war


trump is right Bush lied us into war.

Again, your statement is based on your assumption that Bush could not have been incompetent.

Not was not incompetent.


But COULD NOT possibly have been incompetent.



That is an insane thing to put forth, on your part.


You are desperate to put this all on Bush, and it is making you crazy.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll, post: 16356851

Your conclusion is that other reasons not being mentioned, means they don't exist.

No idiot. Other reasons (threats that could justify war) did not exist. Their non-existence is why no one mentioned them. It's why Bush did not mention them then and you can't mention them now.

You would be a laughingstock if you write down something other than the threat from WMD as a threat unto itself that could justify starting an invasion of a sovereign nation and destroying its government and military in order to start over.

You've been lying for liar Bush so long you have lost all touch with reality,

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll, post: 16356987

But COULD NOT possibly have been incompetent.

Are you trying to say that Bush could not possibly have been incompetent when he offered no invasion thus allowing Saddam Hussein to remain in power if the WMD issue was resolved within ten days?


Do you think the offer was an act of incompetence by Bush.


That makes no sense.

It is incomprehensible that Bush set his own deadline for when inspectors must be finished. That timeline was entirely up to the full voting UNSC.

If war was not NESSECARY on March 7 it certainly could have not been NECESSARY on March 17.

That was Bush's incomprehensible decision and oft told lie that he would engage in war only as a last resort hoping to disarm Iraq of WMD peacefully.

Iraq had no WMD in March 2003.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll, post: 16356851

This is a way of avoiding discussing real issues, honestly and seriously.

You cannot cite one other threat from Iraq besides WMD to our national security that has been cited by Bush as such an existential threat that he was forced to choose war as a last resort and tell the inspectors they must leave.